Recently in Bioethics (Gen.) Category

The American Spectator has published an article I wrote on transhumanism, biotechnology, and Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey. An excerpt:

Bailey makes a similar sneaky acknowledgement using carefully selected language. "It is true that the proposed human animal cybrids would contain mostly human genes, but researchers have no intention of creating cow/human or rabbit/human babies," he writes.

By combining the obscure technical term "cybrid" (an egg cell from an animal that contains the nucleus from a human cell) with the common, emotionally charged term "baby," Bailey deftly obfuscates what is occurring. While the researchers are not creating cow/human babies (beings that have reached the infancy stage of development) they are creating cow/human embryos (beings that have reached the embryonic stage of development).

Denying the humanity of embryos is nothing new, of course, but the broad-based acceptance of certain biotechnologies has made such semantic evasion tactics essential.

Read the rest at The American Spectator.

What if I told you the only significant influence the President has on the economy is in selecting the Chairman of the Federal Reserve?

While the role of the president in "managing the economy" is often overstated, most serious voters would rightly dismiss such a narrow claim as absurd. Yet how often do we hear the similarly daft assertion that the only significant role the president plays in advancing the pro-life agenda is nominating Supreme Court justices?

The fact is that the president has a limited but substantial and broad-based role in protecting life and defending the most vulnerable in society. Here are five examples of why it matters that the president is pro-life:

1. Preserving the Pro-Life Riders -- Each year pro-life provisions or "riders" are attached to the annual appropriations bills which prevent public funds from supporting abortions, abortion providers, or abortion promoters. The pro-life riders are attached to funding legislation and typically come up in the appropriations process or Department of Defense reauthorizations. As AdvanceUSA notes, under President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush, federal regulations were clearly written to prevent recipients of Title X funds from referring for abortions or combining family planning services with abortion services (ex: working at the same location).

Examples of pro-life riders include:

• The Dickey-Wicker provision which prohibits federal funding for research that harms or destroys human embryos.
• The Kemp-Kasten Amendment which prevents funding from going to those who support or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
• The Hyde-Weldon provision which offers conscience protections for health care entities that refuse to provide or encourage abortions. It requires federal funds to be withheld from any state that discriminates against a hospital, insurance provider, or individual doctors and nurses for refusing to participate in abortion.
• The Mexico City Policy, first enacted by Ronald Reagan and later reinstituted by George W. Bush, which prohibits USAID (foreign aid) money from going to any organizations that promote or perform abortions.
• Other provisions that are more specific include bans on funding for: abortions for federal prisoners, abortion in the District of Columbia, abortions through the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, abortions through Peace Corp, and abortion through the international HIV/AIDS bill.

A pro-life president can threaten to use the veto--as Bush has often done--to prevent the removal of such riders. A pro-choice resident, however, would almost certainly veto any legislation that included these pro-life provisions.

2. Filing of amicus briefs in cases before the judiciary -- Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to introduce those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal effects of court decisions will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. Both John Roberts, as a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General, and Samuel Alito, as Assistant to the Solicitor General, submitted briefs defending the pro-life cause. Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried also called for Roe to be reversed in a brief. While the briefs themselves rarely decide the outcome of a particular case, they are useful in limiting the scope of a particular legal change or interpretation

3. Issuance of executive orders -- Executive orders help direct the operation of officers within the executive branch. They also have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers. For example, on the 4th day of the Clinton presidency, Jan. 23, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton signed, in a televised Oval Office ceremony, a series of executive orders undoing the pro-life policies of the Reagan-Bush era. The orders repealed the Mexico City policy, repealed prohibition on federally-funded clinics referring for abortion, lifted the ban on military abortions, and lifted the ban on fetal tissue research.

As Carl Bernstein wrote in his book, A Woman in Charge,

"Hillary had pushed unequivocally for the orders, but Bill's pollster argued that she was dead wrong on the timing of such a hot-button issue; by acting on abortion policy as one of the administration's first pieces of business, the president and, worse, Hillary, would be perceived as governing from the left. But Hillary regarded the prohibitions in question as a powerful symbol of Reagan-era policies, and an opportunity to declare boldly that the Clinton era had begun. There was an additional appeal: it was fiscally neutral, monetarily cost-free, and not subject to a drawn-out legislative process." (p. 256)

4. Selection of political appointments -- The President fills many political appointments that have a direct and significant impact on the pro-life cause. Examples include Health and Human Services (responsible for enforcing the Hyde Amendment, etc.), the FDA (e.g., approval and regulation of abortifacients), and the State Department (which sends multiple delegates to UN conferences like CEDAW and Population and Development, where the international battle for human dignity is waged).

The Justice Department is another agency that has a key role, specifically in deciding how to defend law cases involving US statutes. For example, Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno cleared the way for the nation's first assisted suicide law by deciding that physicians may provide lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients without losing their licenses to write prescriptions. She did so by overturning the position taken by the head of one of her own agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which had said that doctors who prescribe drugs under Oregon's assisted-suicide law could face severe sanctions.

5. Using the "bully pulpit" -- The term "bully pulpit" comes from President Theodore Roosevelt's reference to the White House as a "bully pulpit," meaning a wonderful platform (Roosevelt often used the word "bully" as an adjective meaning superb) from which to persuasively advocate an agenda. As Reagan showed, there is simply no better single platform for advocating the pro-life cause than from within the Oval Office.

Christians have an obligation to the most vulnerable members of our society to elect politicians who have both a robust view of human dignity and the temerity to govern accordingly. We betray this duty when we downplay the role the executive branch in advancing the pro-life cause. Judges and legislators matter; but presidents matter too.

For those concerned about threats to human dignity, news from the bioethical frontier is almost always depressing and reminiscent of bizarre speculative fiction. For example, events in the UK last week have reminded me of an obscure novel by the French writer Vercors. You Shall Know Them begins just after Douglas Templemore injects his infant son with strychnine chlorhydrate. Although anguished by the killing, the father had planned the act even before the child had been sired. It was his attempt to save the mother, a female of the species Paranthropus erectus that had been discovered off the coast of New Zealand.

Because of their almost-human qualities, industrialists planned to use the creatures as "beast of burden" in Australian factories. Outraged by this forced slavery, Templemore, a British journalist, devised a plan to test the legal status of the species. Using artificial insemination, he impregnated one of the captured females with his own seed. While the mother remained jailed in a London zoo, Templemore took his offspring home and put him to death. Afterwards, he called the police to arrest him:

The inspector drew nearer. His pale eyelashes were fluttering like moths.
"Mr. Templemore, what exactly do you expect us to do?"
"Your job, Inspector."
"But what job, sir? This little creature is a monkey, that's plain. Why the dickens do you want to . . ."
"That's my business, Inspector."
"Well, ours is certainly not to meddle . . ."
"I have killed my child, Inspector."
"I've grasped that. But this . . . this creature isn't a . . . it doesn't present . . ."
"He's been christened, Inspector, and his birth duly entered at the registry office under the name of Garry Ralph Templemore."
Fine beads of perspiration broke out on the inspector's face. He suddenly shot a question at Douglas.
"Under what name was the mother entered?"
"Under her own, Inspector: 'Native woman from New Guinea, known as Derry.'"
"False declaration!" cried the inspector triumphantly. "The whole registration is invalid."
"False declaration?"
"The mother isn't a woman."
"That remains to be proved."
"Why, you yourself --"
"Opinions are divided."
"Divided? Divided about what? Whose opinions?"
"Those of the leading anthropologists, about the species the Paranthropus belongs to. It's an intermediate species: man or ape? It resembles both. It may well be that Derry is a woman after all. It's up to you to prove the contrary, if you can. In the meantime her child is my son, before God and the law."

The remainder of the novel focuses on the series of trials set to determine whether Templemore is guilty of murder--or merely animal cruelty. But what was merely a hypothetical question of science fiction in 1953 has become a genuine bioethical conundrum in 2007. For the past several years scientists have been blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

No matter how many times a blogger trashes the press--and I’ve done more than my share of MSM bashing--they are always excited to see the URL of their blog printed in a national newspaper. True, in the past I’ve said that newspaper coverage was overrated. But that was when I was mentioned in The New York Times. Being the subject of an article in The Washington Post is different: It’s a paper that people actually read.

The article by religion reporter Michelle Boorstein is titled "Evangelical Bioethics and the Web." Although the parts about me will be of interest to no one, I’m excited to see the subject of evangelical bioethics receiving some attention. In the unlikely event that that someone actually follows the link in the article back to this blog, I thought I should highlight some of the subjects mentioned.

The excepted quote in "A Blogger’s Opinion" section is taken from Being a Person: Why Personhood is Not Enough. The opening quotes can be found in my recent post What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation.

Other bioethics related posts that may be of interest include:

• [Satire/Abortion] She's Having A Fetus
• [Abortion] Part, Person, or Property: The Connection Between Property Rights and Abortion
• [Abortion] Eleventh Week Eugenics: The Killing of Down Syndrome Children
• [Cloning] Monty Hall Morality: Our Ethical Obligation to Harvest Organ-Donor Clones
• [Cloning] The Bioethics of Therapeutic Cloning: A Brief Primer on the Issues
• [Euthanasia] Still in the World: A Pro-Life View of Death and Dying
• [Reproductive Technologies] Designer Babies: Parental Love and the Bioethics of Genetic Selection
• [Bioethics] Dignity's Mould: How Language Shapes Our Culture’s View of Bioethics

• [Reproductive Technologies] The Issue at Hand: IVF and the Obligations to Embryos
• [Stem Cells] Stem Cell Research and Policy: A Primer on the Issues

Both Matthew Eppinette, my good friend and former boss from The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, and Nigel Cameron, who is mentioned at the end of the article, blog at Bioethics.com. Glenn McGee, our witty secular archnemesis, blogs at Bioethics.net.

One of the reasons I wanted to work for Family Research Council was to be near some of the great leaders, both evangelical and Catholic, in the field of bioethics. Our website contains a multitude of valuable articles on the subject.

The article also mentions "In, But Not Of: A Guide to Christian Ambition", the excellent little book by my "blogfather" Hugh Hewitt. Hugh is one of the most magnanimous and generous men I've ever met and his book has become for me a vade mecum. I keep a stack of the them around so that I can put them in the hands of every serious-minded young Christian I meet.

(Although bloggers rarely have a kind word for reporters, I have to say that I'm grateful for all the hard work that Michelle Boorstein put into this article. I'll have more to say about my new favorite journalist later this week, but first I want to hear what the religious news uber-critics at GetReligion think about the piece.)

Dr. Albert Mohler has been under fire recently for his suggestion that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified. Some on the right, including Christians, are upset that he would concede the obvious point that there may be a biological basis for sexual orientation. Others on the left, including many homosexuals, are upset that he would admit the obvious point that if there is a biological basis for sexual orientation people may want to change it by medical intervention. Both complaints reveal that that the issue of sexual orientation is often approached emotionally rather than rationally.

Two years ago I argued that those on both sides of the issue would be able to better defend their positions if they would agree that while there is a (likely) biological basis for the homosexual orientation, it is ultimately irrelevant since sexual activity is freely chosen behavior.

Unfortunately, this is the very idea that gay rights activists have been working against for several decades. They've often been the biggest proponents of finding a 'gay gene’ or some type of neurological explanation for sexual orientation. By finding a genetic cause, it's often believed, it will remove any doubt that individuals have no choice in the matter. They are simply "born that way."

Ironically, if such an explanation is found it could have just the opposite effect of what is hoped for. As Francis Fukuyama speculates in Our Posthuman Future:

The primaries are still months away, yet conservative Congressman Jim Nussle of Iowa is already coming out in support of Rudy Giuliani. In a note to Rich Lowry at National Review, Nussle wrote:

”Perfect” has become the enemy of the “good”, and we saw that borne out during this past November’s elections. I am hopeful that our Party will avoid needless debates over a non-existent perfect candidate.

It is true that Mayor Giuliani and I don’t agree on every issue. My support for a person who doesn’t see eye to eye with me on all issues doesn’t mean that I am turning my back on those beliefs. But our country is at a crossroads and we cannot forsake progress for perfection.

In examining the letter, Rick Moore makes the connection that Nussle leaves unstated:

Nussle does make the argument that there will never be a “perfect” candidate, and I fear that too many conservatives have become such single-issue voters (abortion) that they will eagerly back a weaker candidate just because of his views on that one issue alone. In doing so, they not only risk helping elect a Democrat who’s not only pro-abortion, but pro-a lot of other stuff that conservatives find abhorrent.

Yes abortion is important, but the president really doesn’t have that much control over an issue that has been decided by the courts. President Bush is anti-abortion, but has abortion stopped because he’s president? No, and it probably won’t until there’s a change in the hearts of the people, and while the president may have some effect on that, in reality the president has little to no ability to change abortion in terms of its legal standing.

I am sympathetic to the pragmatism expressed both by Rep. Nussle and my friend Rick. In fact, I agree that the President has little or no control over the issue of abortion. Giuliani, if elected, might even appoint a judge that would help overturn Roe. Even so, I could not endorse him for Giuliani still fails on this key “litmus test.” Why would I hold him responsible for an issue that isn't under his control? Because I am an unabashed single-issue voter -- and that issue is justice.

[Note: In preparation of the upcoming Blogs for Life Convention, FRC Blog and Pro-Life Blogs is hosting an online symposium. I encourage all pro-life bloggers who are able to participate and to attend the conference, either in person or through the live webcast. More information on the event can be found at the Blogs for Life website.]

Those of us who reject the culture of death hail from a variety of backgrounds, faiths, and walks of life. We often approach the pro-life issues from different perspectives rooted in our beliefs and priorities. Although united in defense of life, we often have differences of opinions that can affect how we communicate our message and pursue our objectives.

For the next few weeks we'll be hosting an online symposium to explore these issues. The online symposium will culminate in a capstone seminar at the upcoming Blogs for Life Conference. The three symposium topics are:

Defining our Movement: Redefining “Pro-Life” for the 21st Century

Over the past thirty years the term “pro-life” has often been almost completely associated with the issue of abortion. How can we use weblog technology to argue for a more robust definition that includes opposition in such areas as euthanasia, assisted suicide, and embryo destructive research? Also, where do we draw the between essential, nonnegotiable elements (e.g., opposition to abortion) and matters on which disagreements and differences of opinion should be respected allowed (for example, IVF or capital punishment)?

Defining our Approach: Choosing between Absolutism and Incrementalism

Should we approach pro-life issues on an incremental basis, gradually achieving our goals by compromise and exceptions? Or, should we settle for nothing less than full legal recognition of the sanctity for life? What are the merits for these positions? What are the drawbacks?

Defining our Future: Making Life, Taking Life, Faking Life

The pro-life cause can be divided into three broad areas of concern: Making Life (genetic engineering, embryonic stem cell research, cloning); Taking Life (abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia); and Faking Life (transhumanism, eugenics). What areas are we making the most progress? What areas will be of most concern over the next decade? How can bloggers have an impact in defending human dignity in these areas?

To include your post in the symposium, send us the following information:

• Name
• Name and URL of blog or website
• Title and URL of post
• Brief summary

Links to the symposium entries will be posted on Blogs for Life. The questions, concerns, and issues raised in these entries will be discussed during capstone panel session. All entries should be sent to jpc@frc.org.

A person is not always a human being, but is a human being always a person?

Examples abound of non-human persons: Christians believe that the Godhead consists of "three Persons of one substance." U.S. judges have ruled that corporations are "artificial persons." The Spanish Parliament ruled that great apes are "legal persons." And fans of Star Trek argue that androids like Data and aliens like Spock are all (fictional) persons.

Clearly, being a member of the human race is not necessary to be considered a person. But should all human beings be considered persons? Historically, the answer has been a resounding "no." Slaves, women, infants, Jews, and foreigners are all groups that have at one time or another been denied either legal or moral standing as "persons."

While they were typically considered to be human they were not afforded the rights that are imbued by personhood. The judgment of later generations, however, has without exception concluded that denying personhood to these members of the human family is a great moral evil. I have no doubt that future generations will judge our culture just as harshly.

Yet while recognition of personhood is necessary for a human to be granted certain positive rights, I contend that it is not required for a basic negative right -- the right not to be deprived of life without due process of the law. In other words, people don't have a right to kill you simply because they don?t want to concede that you are a person.

Rights--whether positive (those that impose an obligation on others) or negative (those that oblige others to refrain from certain activities)--should be assigned based on the ability to respond as moral beings. For example, a Belgian Sheepdog has no moral accountability and thus no moral obligations to me as a person. If he eats my hamster I can't fault him for not respecting my right to private property. But since I am morally accountable I have an obligation not to cruelly torture and kill the dog for eating my pet rodent.

Likewise, human beings at the earliest stages of development have not developed the moral accountability to be assigned positive rights. For this reason some people, such as philosopher Daniel Dennett, believe that a class of human beings exists that are not yet persons. Let's call this class of homo sapiens "non-person human beings."

When I wrote the �embryo eaters� post last year, I admitted that it was a bit �outside the normal parameters� of bioethical debate. However, a few weeks ago, PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, wrote a post that made mine look tasteful in comparison. Myers posted the following picture:

Underneath he added the following:

Possible answers:

• Well, what if McNuggets have souls, huh? What do you think of that, smart guy?


• Neither have souls!


• "Good" and "McNuggets" in the same sentence?


• Let's have a taste test and find out.

I suspect that for most morally adjusted people, comparing a human embryo to the precursor of a chicken McNugget would trigger a �yuck factor� response. Myers� commenters, however, found it merely amusing. Out of the several dozen comments he received on the post, none of them expressed the slightest discomfort with the comparison or with the strange joke about having a �taste test.� In fact, Jared Hansen was the first to show any concern, and that was that Myer�s reputation might be sullied by creationist�s �quote-miners� who would use the line: �PZ Myers, noted atheist and evolutionist, suggests eating a human fetus!�

Hansen needn�t have worried; Myers antics killed his credibility long ago. Whatever serious points he might make are overshadowed by his venomous, puerile, hatred of all things religious. When the guy who pens the Dilbert cartoon agrees with you about evolution yet still thinks you aren�t credible source on the topic, it�s time to reconsider your tactics.

It also doesn�t help when he adds a comment saying, �I suspect that at that age [both embryos] taste mostly like gooey mucopolysaccharides, with no texture. Hey, just like McNuggets!�

Still, I don�t think that Myers is suggesting eating a �human fetus.� The question, though, is would he have a problem with eating a human embryo?

[Note: This post was originally written in April 2005. I�m reposting in order to provide context for Part II.]

The following thought experiment is used to explore some basic assumptions currently held in the field of bioethics. As with any such hypothetical scenario, a certain degree of liberty is taken with what is considered within the realm of possibility. Some people may complain that I have stretched outside the normal parameters in order to make a point.

I completely agree.

Unfortunately, we live in an age in which many people consider it ethical to destroy �non-person humans� in order to use their parts for experiments in speculative medical science. When such views are so commonly accepted it�s difficult to present a test case that stretches beyond our culture�s absurd and twisted views of bioethics.

It begins with an old wives tale. After receiving a grant from a multi-national pharmaceutical company, a young French medical scientist begins a post-doctoral study of a peculiar practice conducted in Belgium. A guild of midwives has adapted the obscure practice of eating the placenta and used it as a cure for some forms of minor debilitating afflictions. The Belgian media reports on stories of miraculous recovery from arthritis by elderly citizens who eat a soup made with fresh placenta.

The young scientist is initially skeptical, believing a placebo effect is responsible for the �miraculous� results. But after conducting his own research the French doctor becomes convinced that further study is warranted. The public�s disgust and the medical community�s lukewarm reception of the claims, though, sours the pharma company on pursuing further research. Fortunately for the young physician, a Dutch billionaire who was cured of his own ailments decides to fund the inquiry.

[Note: Several months ago, I used John Rawls �veil of ignorance� in an argument an argument against embryo destruction. Although I still believe the application is sound, I was never completely satisfied with that post and so I want to return to Rawls� thought experiment and apply it in a slightly different way.]

�I always took for granted,� wrote political philosopher John Rawls, �that the writers we were studying were much smarter than I was. If they were not, why was I wasting my time and the students� time by studying them?� There is no doubt that Rawls, a man who is often referred to as the most significant political philosopher of the 20th century, was a much, much smarter man than I will ever be. While I don�t subscribe to his particular form of liberalism, I do think his views should be afforded due consideration.

�If I saw a mistake in their arguments,� continued Rawls, �I supposed those writers saw it too and must have dealt with it. But where? I looked for their way out, not mine. Sometimes their way out was historical: in their day the question need not be raised, or wouldn�t arise and so couldn�t then be fruitfully discussed.� To my knowledge, embryo destruction was not an issue raised by the Harvard professor. But I think Rawls work could shed much needed light on this ethically troublesome area.

One concept that I believe is particularly useful is the infamous and controversial thought experiment first articulated in A Theory of Justice. Beginning with a minimal assumption about human nature and morality, he attempted to develop the principle of justice under which it would be most reasonable for people to choose to live. The just social life, according to Rawls, could be derived from a thought experiment in which people imagined an "original position" where they decide upon social rules. In order to maximize fairness, the philosopher proposed that the rules be developed from behind a "veil of ignorance" which prevents their knowing anything about their own situation in the hypothesized society:

Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. The principles of justice are chosen from behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain�.The original position is, one might say, the appropriate initial status quo, and thus the fundamental agreements reached are fair. This explains the propriety of the name �justice is fairness�: it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in a state that is fair. (pg. 12)

Rather than revisiting the well-trampled arguments for whether this line of reasoning is valid, I�ll simply concede that assumption and use it as the terra firma upon which out current controversy can stand. In fact, I don�t intend to use the veil of ignorance as an argument but rather as what philosopher Daniel Dennett calls an �intuition pump� � an analogy or illustration that helps us understand what would otherwise be obscure or abstract.

How should Christians respond to the medical needs of the community? What paradigms are believers adopting for the delivery of healthcare? Throughout the history of the church, Christians have been actively involved in the provision and funding of healthcare. But for the past fifty years, these questions have been treated as if they were political issues reserved for the state rather than matters to be handled by the church.

Some members of the evangelical community, though, are beginning to reassert this Biblically-mandated role and are the subject of a recent Washington Post article on �faith-based alternatives to health insurance.� These "church plans," as they are known in the insurance industry, attempt to fulfill the Biblical admonition to �bear one another�s burdens� (Galatians 6:2) by bringing Christians together to share the cost of their medical bills.

Although the plans differ in details, their basic premise is similar to health insurance programs. Members send a monthly check -- a "share" rather than a �premium�-- ranging from $100 to $400, either to the plan or directly to those the plan designates with "needs." The members also agree to send cards and letters or to pray for those members who are sick or injured.

The plans also require a degree of accountability and impose strict limits on treatment, restrictions that, the WP notes, �would be illegal under regulations that apply to conventional insurance.�

From a Christian perspective, the creation of human-primate chimeras raises a number of bioethical concerns. The most direct, of course, is the possibility of creating human-like awareness in primates that leads to unnecessary suffering. While under some circumstances experimentation on animals can be ethically justified, doing so in a way that would unduly increase their pain and discomfort would be a violation of our duties as stewards of God�s creation. This in itself is reason enough to raise misgivings about the procedure.

The Christian worldview, however, is not the dominant framework in our culture for questions about ethics, science, or technology. Unfortunately, we live in a society where answers that cannot be shoehorned into an acceptable non-religious interpretative structure must be discarded altogether. It is similar to being asked to provide the sum of 4 and 3 but having to do so without resorting to a �religiously based� prime numbers. The absurdity of this approach is obvious since no answer we could give would ever be correct. Yet this is often what is expected when we are asked to provide answers to questions about bioethics that must rely on non-religious criteria.

Take, for example, the question of why humans have more intrinsic dignity than other animals. The �correct� answer, according to Christians and Jews, is because our dignity rests upon being created in imagio dei, in the image of God. Our dignitas -- worth � is not a characteristic we acquire, an ability we possess, or a condition we can lose. It is based on our being created for the purpose of entering into covenant fellowship with our Creator.

Secularists, however, not only deny that this explanation is essential to explaining dignity, but reject all such �God-talk� as irrelevant. Instead, they search for a moral distinction based on other criteria.

But just as in the search for a non-prime seven, the search for a moral distinction between humans and animals will be in vain. Inevitably, they will have to either accept the �correct� answer or reject the question altogether. Most, like bioethicist Peter Singer, will choose the latter. In his 1989 essay titled �All Animals Are Equal�, Singer claimed:

As a species, we homo sapiens are remarkably self-centered and ungrateful. Our monkey ancestors spent millennia mutating and surviving in order that we might reach the top of the food chain. Yet having reached the pinnacle of the evolutionary ladder how do we show our appreciation? By snubbing our primate forebears and treating them as if they were mere animals.

Take, for example, the reaction to cutting-edge experiments in which scientists inject human brain cells into monkey fetuses in order to study the effects. The critics of such procedures argue that if these fetuses are allowed to develop into self-aware subjects that science will be thrown into an �ethical nightmare.� The reason? Because of the possibility, however remote, that the resulting human-primate chimeras would possess �human-like abilities.�

This was the conclusion of a panel of 22 experts -- including primatologists, stem cell researchers, lawyers and philosophers � published in a July 15 issue of the journal Science. The panel even admitted they don't know what really separates humans from our closest relatives, morally speaking, or how cognitive changes in primates can be measured. "Many of us expected that, once we'd pooled our expertise, we'd be able to say why human cells would not produce significant changes in non-human brains," said the report's lead author Mark Greene, "But the cell biologists and neurologists couldn't specify limits on what implanted human cells might do, and the primatologists explained that gaps in our knowledge of normal non-human primate abilities make it difficult to detect changes.�

[Note: Commitments at the CBHD bioethics conference prevent me from being able to write any original posts tonight. So in honor of the conference I�ve decided to recyle this post from last summer.]

Abortion. Euthanasia. Embryonic stem cell research. Some of the most contentious and disputed issues of our day are matters of bioethics. The lines are sharply drawn and each side presents their arguments. Much heat is produced by the debates but very little light is shed to help us illuminate our path.

Most of us recognize � and reject � the opposition�s view because it is based on a "religious" or "secular" worldview. But while we acknowledge this fact, we rarely dig beneath the surface to see if our differences aren�t rooted in a more foundational presupposition.

After all, some religious people support abortion while some secularist want to ban ESC research. The easy labels don't always apply, which is why I believe that once we look deeper we find that our fundamental disagreements on bioethical issues are due to our profoundly different views on the nature of human dignity.

Dignity is defined as the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect. This definition is significant because it highlights the key differences between the two most dominant worldviews in our culture � a functionally atheistic materialism and the Judeo-Christian form of theism.

In the theistic view, human life has an inherent dignity. A generous and loving Creator not only provides our biological existence but retains this same gift for his own enjoyment. Human life, therefore, does not belong to us but to Him. Our purpose � to glorify and love our Creator � is not based on any particular state of our biological development. All life is intrinsically valuable because it is valued by our Creator. Dignity is not something that is earned, it is merely recognized.

In sharp contrast, the materialist narrative claims that human life only has a qualitative dignity. Humans are products of chance, created without purpose by an impersonal universe. Our existence is nothing but a fluke; our consciousness a cosmic accident. Since we have no personal Creator, the worth of the personal is determined by fiat � the worth of life is whatever we decide it shall be. Dignity, therefore, is not inherent to all human life but based on the existence of certain qualifying criteria.

In February of 2004, Advocates for Youth, a non-profit group advocating for sex education, joined with the sexual health-oriented Alan Guttmacher Institute to release a report claiming that half of all young Americans will get a sexually transmitted disease by the age of 25. "Given the prevalence of STDs, young people need all the facts,� said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, �including medically accurate information on condoms." Guttmacher's Sharon Camp added that, �It is essential to have medically accurate information about condoms.�

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn agrees. He is pushing to make condom labels "medically accurate" and has threatened to block the appointment of acting Food and Drug Administration head Lester Crawford until the labels are changed. His efforts, though, are being met with resistance by several "safe sex" advocates � including the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

"[Condoms] do not provide 100 percent protection, but for people who are sexually active they are the best and the only method we have for preventing these diseases," said Heather Boonstra, a public policy official with Guttmacher. She added that Coburn and abstinence groups are "manipulating this data to drive home their own anti-condom, anti-contraceptive message." James Trussell, who serves on the board of the Medical Institute and is director of Princeton University's Office of Population Research, said there is "absolutely incontrovertible evidence" that condoms reduce transmission of the most serious sexually transmitted disease, AIDS.

"To my mind, everything else is gravy," Trussell said, "All of this is ideologically motivated. What they're really concerned about is people who are not married having sex."

Efforts to prevent herpes, chlamydia, HPV, syphilis, and hepatitis are�gravy?

In his Histories, Herodotus, the first Western historian, relates a curious anecdote about the Persian king Darius. Gathering a group of Greeks who were presently at his court, the king asked them what they would take to eat the dead bodies of their fathers. They replied that no sum of money would entice them to commit such a despicable act. As Herodotus relates the story:

He then sent for certain Indians, of the race called Callatians, men who eat their fathers, and asked them, while the Greeks stood by, and knew by the help of an interpreter all that was said, -- �What he should give them to burn the bodies of their fathers at their decease?� The Indians exclaimed aloud, and bade him forbear such language. Such is men�s wont herein; and Pindar was right, in my judgment, when he said, �Custom is the king o�er all.�

Cultural relativism may not be sovereign over all but it does appear to rule over matters concerning the dead. The way a culture treats their dead � burning, burying, eating, etc. � often provides a key to understanding the way they view the human body. What then does it say about a culture that injects the dead with plastic and puts them on public display?

Since the invention of democracy in ancient Greece, it has been a common practice for political opponents to shout down each other, attempting to rebut an argument by drowning out the opposing view. This is a regrettably common feature in political discourse. But not only is this method contrary to reasoned discourse and the free exchange of ideas, it's almost always ineffective. Sometimes the best way to crush an argument is simply to let its advocates present it for themselves. Instead of shouting them down, it can be more beneficial to get them a megaphone.

A perfect example can be found at The Huffington Post, an embarrassingly overhyped blog launched by conservative-turned-progressive Arianna Huffington. The blog is intended to be a sort of liberal response to the �conservative� Drudge Report with an added dimension of including celebrity bloggers so that the Hollywood elite can finally have a chance to be heard. Huffington reportedly approached many deep pocketed liberals to pony up $500,000 so that we could finally read posts like the satirical musings on gay marriage by Julia Louis-Dreyfus (of Seinfeld fame) and her husband Brad Hall (famous for being married to Julia).

But the best posts, in my opinion, are those written by the non-celebrity Serious Thinkers on the subject of bioethics. The arguments presented are so obtuse that I�m starting to wonder if L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke isn�t right when she says that,

The following thought experiment is used to explore some basic assumptions currently held in the field of bioethics. As with any such hypothetical scenario, a certain degree of liberty is taken with what is considered within the realm of possibility. Some people may complain that I have stretched outside the normal parameters in order to make a point.

I completely agree.

Unfortunately, we live in an age in which many people consider it ethical to destroy �non-person humans� in order to use their parts for experiments in speculative medical science. When such views are so commonly accepted it�s difficult to present a test case that stretches beyond our culture�s absurd and twisted views of bioethics.

It begins with an old wives tale. After receiving a grant from a multi-national pharmaceutical company, a young French medical scientist begins a post-doctoral study of a peculiar practice conducted in Belgium. A guild of midwives has adapted the obscure practice of eating the placenta and used it as a cure for some forms of minor debilitating afflictions. The Belgian media reports on stories of miraculous recovery from arthritis by elderly citizens who eat a soup made with fresh placenta.

The young scientist is initially skeptical, believing a placebo effect is responsible for the �miraculous� results. But after conducting his own research the French doctor becomes convinced that further study is warranted. The public�s disgust and the medical community�s lukewarm reception of the claims, though, sours the pharma company on pursuing further research. Fortunately for the young physician, a Dutch billionaire who was cured of his own ailments decides to fund the inquiry.

�Ordinarily he is insane,� said Heinrich Heine, �but he has lucid moments when he is only stupid.� The 19th century German poet made his observation about a newly appointed ambassador. But his words are even more applicable to a different kind of appointee, the Princeton professor and ethicist Peter Singer.

Singer is often referred to without a hint of irony as an �ethicist.� He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending �the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals. He is also a staunch defender of non-voluntary euthanasia, infanticide, and even bestiality (assuming it is consensual). As I�ve written before, if he we were teaching high school he would be unemployable. But the Ivory Tower is more tolerant of idiocy and so the Australian philosopher has been able to secure positions at some of the most elite universities on three continents. He currently holds the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, a position he was appointed to by Harold Shapiro, the former chair of Bill Clinton's bioethics panel.

In the past I�ve been criticized for railing against Singer without adequately addressing the reason he holds the views he does. As Kevin T. Keith said, �you simply gape at Singer's positions as if they were self-evidently wrong simply because he proceeds from different (and more rationally grounded) premises.� Kevin has a valid complaint. I do assume Singer�s positions are self-evidently wrong because they are, in fact, self-evidently wrong. The Nazis also had �rationally grounded premises� for killing Jews but that does not mean that I need to explain where the Holocaust was "wrong." Defending the killing of newborn disabled children is self-evidently wrong whether it is being advocated in the concentration camps of Germany or in an Ivy-league university in New Jersey.

But I don�t just think that most of Singer�s views are self-evidently wrong, I think they are stupid. Singer may very well be a genius but his arguments often exhibit such a complete lack of intelligence that it is hard to imagine why anyone would take him seriously. Consider, for example, this selection (via Gerard Van der Leun) from Singer�s FAQ:

The concept of the "wisdom of repugnance", a phrase first coined by bioethicist Leon Kass, has been much maligned recently. Many critics believe the idea that the "ick factor" should play a role in ethical debate is patently absurd and completely irrational. I disagree and in this three-part series I hope to show that the emotion of disgust not only has a valid role to play in moral decision-making but that human dignity is put in danger when we reject the "deep wisdom" of repugnance.

In 1980, cult-movie director David Lynch released “The Elephant Man," a film that told the story of John Merrick, a 19th-century Englishman who had the disfiguring congenital disease, Proteous Syndrome. After spending most of his life as a side-show freak, Merrick wanted nothing more in life than to regain his dignity. In the most memorable line of the movie, Merrick cries out in anguish, “ I am not an animal! I am a human being! I...am...a man!"

Ironically, the very emotion that led people to treat Merrick as an animal is one that is peculiarly human. One of the most essential needs of humanity is a recognition of our inherent dignity, which entails separating us from the other species. In the seminal psychological research report “Body, Psyche, and Culture: The Relationship Between Disgust and Morality", the authors note:

In 1997, bioethicist Leon Kass wrote an article for The New Republic entitled “The Wisdom of Repugnance" in which he proposed a ban on human cloning. Though the article is rarely read by critics of Dr. Kass, the title lives on as a dismissive summation of the “anti-scientific, pro-religious" view of bioethical debate. The concept, however, is not intended to be an argument but rather a reason why we should question our reasons for continuing further along a morally dubious path:

Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday's repugnances are today calmly accepted - though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate it. Can anyone really give an argument fully adequate to the horror which is father-daughter incest (even with consent), or having sex with animals, or mutilating a corpse, or eating human flesh, or even just (just!) raping or murdering another human being? Would anybody's failure to give full rational justification for his or her revulsion at these practices make that revulsion ethically suspect? Not at all. On the contrary, we are suspicious of those who think that they can rationalize away our horror, say, by trying to explain the enormity of incest with arguments only about the genetic risks of in-breeding.

There is one problem with Kass' concept. He makes the mistake of believing that everyone has a moral compass that is sufficiently calibrated and in tune with prerational understandings. Certain people, particularly those who have an almost idolatrous view of human reason, will reject this concept outright. Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, the cell biologist who served on the Bioethics Council, is a prime example of one who would disagree:

The French writer Vercors begins his novel, �You Shall Know Them�, just after Douglas Templemore injects his infant son with strychnine chlorhydrate. Although anguished by the killing, the father had planned the act even before the child had been sired. It was his attempt to save the mother, a female of the species Paranthropus erectus that had been discovered off the coast of New Zealand.

Because of their almost-human qualities, industrialists planned to use the creatures as �beast of burden� in Australian factories. Outraged by this forced slavery, Templemore, a British journalist, devised a plan to test the legal status of the species. Using artificial insemination, he impregnated one of the captured females with his own seed. While the mother remained jailed in a London zoo, Templemore took his offspring home and put him to death. Afterwards, he called the police to arrest him:

[Note: Since I�m on a three-day sabbatical from writing new essays, I�m recycling this series of posts that I wrote in February 2004. It stirred up a bit of controversy so naturally it was an obvious choice for reposting. (See also: Parts II and III)]

“Would Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn be on Ritalin today?" asks child psychiatrist Dr. Lawrence H. Diller in a meeting with the President’s Council on Bio-Ethics. “No doubt in my mind that they would be if they lived in my community. I see Tom Sawyers weekly."

Dr. Diller isn’t the only one. Between 1990 and 2000, there has been a 2,500% increase in the production and use of the prescription drug. Ritalin has become one of the most prescribed drugs in the country.

Ritalin is the brand name for methylphenidate, a central nervous system stimulant that is often prescribed for ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). ADHD is often considered a neurobiological disorder, similar to brain damage or mental retardation, despite the fact that no biological origin for the disorder has ever been discovered. The point, however, would be moot since ADHD is not diagnosed using neurological testing but by using the the criteria listed in the DSM-IV, a reference manual used by mental health professionals .

The criteria used to make the diagnosis of ADHD is established by determining if “six or more symptoms of inattention have persisted for at least six months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level." Since the “symptoms" include such items as, “often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork" it's surprising that every child in the country isn’t diagnosed as having the disorder.

[Note: Since I�m on a three-day sabbatical from writing new essays, I�m recycling this series of posts that I wrote in February 2004. It stirred up a bit of controversy so naturally it was an obvious choice for reposting. (See also: Parts I and III)]

In their book Driven to Distraction, Drs. Edward M. Hallowell and John J. Ratey include a questionnaire that can help determine if an adult has Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). The authors make no clear distinction between what is ADD and what is “normal" so for the purposes of this completely unscientific experiment, we will go with one quarter (25 question) of the responses answered with “yes". If you meet this threshold then you could likely be diagnosed with the disorder.

[Note: If you are too impatient to answer all the question the you definitely have ADD.]

Feel free to leave your score in the comments section. The questions are as follows:

[Note: Since I�m on a three-day sabbatical from writing new essays, I�m recycling this series of posts that I wrote in February 2004. It stirred up a bit of controversy so naturally it was an obvious choice for reposting. (See also: Parts I and II)]

While I was preparing a post that clarified my view on ADD and Ritalin use, Doug Sirman added a comment that explained it better than I would have been able to do. Rather than repeat his argument I’ve reposted it here and added some additional commentary. (At the end of this post I’ve also addressed some of the criticisms left in the comments section of this series.)

[Note: The areas in italics are from Sirman.]

Pro-life student groups from some of the most elite schools in the country (Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Cornell, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Stanford, the University of Virginia, New York University, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, and the University of California Berkeley) have published a one-page ad in defense of embryo protection. The ad, entitled �Human Rights for All�, is a well-reasoned and soundly argued defense that deserves to be taken seriously. While I recommend reading it in its entirety, I want to highlight a few choice quotes taken from the treatise:

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president," said John Edwards in a recent speech, "people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.�

The fact that Edwards is using the actor�s death for his political purposes is disgusting. The fact that he is making claims that even Christoper Reeves considered to be implausible is despicable. But the fact that he is covering up the fact that it is the Congress, not the President, who is preventing the expansion of embryonic stem cell research is downright dishonest.

This isn�t exactly a new lie they�ve come up with. On their campaign website, the Kerry/Edwards campaign promises to �overturn the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines.� While they may simply be ignorant about the issue, I suspect they know Congress is the one who limits ESC research. After all, they are the ones who repeatedly voted for the appropriations bill that contained the Dickey Amendment.

Proposition 71, a California ballot measure that would allow the state to borrow $3 billion for embryonic stem cell research, has recently been receiving support from a long list of billionaires, Silicon Valley tycoons, Nobel laureates, and Hollywood celebrities. So far, the effort has netted $12 million in donations. One of those wealthy backers is Bill Gates, who provided a $400,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The contribution is not insignificant, though Gates could probably collect that in change from his couch cushions. But Mark Byron is curious why he doesn�t give even more:

Tara Reese was seven months pregnant when she went to an emergency room, complaining of a racing pulse and dizziness. The doctors who examined her determined that she had a rapid pulse rate and high blood pressure and sent her to the labor and delivery room for further observation. Several times through the rest of the night, doctors monitored the heart tones of the baby. The following morning the doctors confirmed that the child would be stillborn.

Reese and her husband sued both the Fort Worth clinic and the doctors, claiming that negligence resulted in the death of her baby. The case was eventually sent to the Texas Supreme Court who ruled in an 8-1 judgment that parents of a stillborn child can't sue a Fort Worth hospital for negligence because their child was not a person:

Abortion. Euthanasia. Embryonic stem cell research. Some of the most contentious and disputed issues of our day are matters of bioethics. The lines are sharply drawn and each side presents their arguments. Much heat is produced by the debates but very little light is shed to help us illuminate our path.

Most of us recognize � and reject � the opposition�s view because it is based on a "religious" or "secular" worldview. But while we acknowledge this fact, we rarely dig beneath the surface to see if our differences aren�t rooted in a more foundational presupposition. After all, some religious people support abortion while some secularist want to ban ESC research. The easy labels don't always apply, which is why I believe that once we look deeper we find that our fundamental disagreements on bioethical issues are due to our profoundly different views on the nature of human dignity.

Dignity is defined as the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect. This definition is significant because it highlights the key differences between the two most dominant worldviews in our culture � a functionally atheistic materialism and the Judeo-Christian form of theism.

In the theistic view, human life has an inherent dignity. A generous and loving Creator not only provides our biological existence but retains this same gift for his own enjoyment. Human life, therefore, does not belong to us but to Him. Our purpose � to glorify and love our Creator � is not based on any particular state of our biological development. All life is intrinsically valuable because it is valued by our Creator. Dignity is not something that is earned, it is merely recognized.

In sharp contrast, the materialist narrative claims that human life only has a qualitative dignity. Humans are products of chance, created without purpose by an impersonal universe. Our existence is nothing but a fluke; our consciousness a cosmic accident. Since we have no personal Creator, the worth of the personal is determined by fiat � the worth of life is whatever we decide it shall be. Dignity, therefore, is not inherent to all human life but based on the existence of certain qualifying criteria.

The death of Ronald Reagan triggered an outpouring of support for the use of embryonic stem cell research as a means of finding a cure for Alzheimer‘s. A day before the President’s passing, the New Republic ran an article on stem cells which claimed that Nancy Reagan’s support for the research would, “resonate with the many Congressional Republicans who have confided to advocates that they're reconsidering their support for [Bush’s] position." The image of the grieving widow was expected to further bolster support for a change in policy in order to find a cure for the debilitating disease.

There’s just one problem. Stem cell research isn’t likely to lead to a cure for Alzheimer's.

As the Washington Post reports:

Fifty years from now we�ll look back and realize that biotechnology was second only to global terrorism in the issues that shaped our budding century. The skirmishes and arguments that are now being fought over the issue will be the ones that shaped the outcome and influenced the attitudes toward human dignity. The preservation of dignity requires that conservatives address these bioethical debates before we make an irrecoverable slide down the path of adopting dehumanizing technologies.

One of the key policy discussions currently under debate is research on embryonic stem-cells. The political left continues to mislead the public by implying that this research will provide numerous cures for debilitating diseases. The only person preventing this golden age of medicine from being ushered in is President Bush, a bio-luddite who allows his religious qualms to interfere with medical progress.

The New Republic is the latest to peddle this silly idea, claiming that Bush�s opposition to the research is not just �bad science� but �bad policy� as well. The facts, however, tell a different story as NRO senior editor Rameesh Ponnuru shows in his solid smackdown of the article.

While I agree with Ponnuru�s fisking, I think his argument would have been even stronger had he pointed out that the progress with adult stem cells (ASCs) might make the use of ESCs unnecessary. Of course you aren�t likely to hear this claim being touted by the scientists who want the federal government to fund their research grants. Unable to convince the private sector of the research's potential, these scientists must rely on the largess of the state to ensure they have a profitable career. Policy decisions, though, should be based on what's best for the American people rather than what's best for the tenure track of university researchers.

A Chicago genetics lab has helped five families produce 'designer babies" who are able to donate life-saving tissue to siblings with life-threatening diseases. The babies' umbilical cord blood contained perfectly matched stem cells which can be transplanted into their sick brother or sister.

The Chicago Sun Times reports that one sibling with anemia has undergone a successful stem cell transplant, and a second sibling with anemia will soon be ready for the procedure. Three other siblings have leukemia, which is currently in remission. Stem cells from cord blood were frozen in the event a sibling's cancer rebounds and a stem cell transplant becomes necessary.

Numerous ethical issues are at stake, including the process by which the designer children are produced. According to Daniel McConchie:

The experimenters took nine couples, created 199 embryos by IVF, found that 45 embryos were a suitable match for a potential stem cell transplant using either umbilical cord blood or bone marrow, 28 were implanted and five born alive. The five were born as a result of preimplantation genetic matching while the others were either discarded, frozen, or didn't make it. (Y. Verlinsky et al., "Preimplantation HLA Testing," JAMA, May 5, 2004, pp. 2079-85.)

Destroying embryos in order to accomplish the desired goal is morally problematic, though certainly nothing new. After all, in vitro fertilization clinics have been doing it for decades. The more pressing ethical matter is the idea of creating children for their medical usefulness. Should people have babies for such pragmatic reasons? As McConchie goes on to add,